What Does it Mean, Philosophically, to Argue that God Does or Does Not Exist?

Jack Cummins

Some people seem to be able to come to a clear answer to this question and describe themselves as theist or atheist. To be unable to come up with a clear answer seems to lead to agnosticism, which is a possible form of impasse. At times, I side with theists and at times with atheists and some agnostics. I find that the idea of 'God' and what it means for such a being to exist to be one of the most extremely perplexing philosophy problems.

The concept of God may have different meanings and how this meaning is established may lead to various aspects of the understanding of the nature of reality and what it would mean to find 'proof' of God's existence. I grew up as a theist, and at age 12 chose to move to a Catholic school because I couldn't cope with the theory of evolution. Later, I discovered that the teachers at the Catholic school were struggling with the theory of evolution and trying to understand the symbolic understanding of the Bible, in relation to scientific thinking.

I have questioned my religious upbringing and the way in which ideas of 'sin' have led to guilt and how religious beliefs have often led to conflict and war. Marx and Nietzsche have shown some of the negative aspects of religion. However, I am not sure about concrete materialism and see the God question as so complex. I am left wondering what it means to be a theist or an atheist, or something in between? Having been reading and writing on this site for a couple of years, I have wondered if I have not read as much as I should on the philosophy literature on the idea of 'God' and various arguments for an against the existence of God.

Recently, I read 'Five Proofs of the Existence of God', by Edward Fiser(2017). He looks at the various ideas for the proof of God, including the Aristotelian, Neo-Platonic, Augustinian, Thomist and Rationalist perspectives. The general gist of the book is probably slightly biased in favour of God. However, that particular conclusion is not my main concern but what seems important may be the various reasons why the arguments for and against God's existence may work philosophically or not. He argues that the God spoken of by the philosophers may be so different from that of the ordinary religious believer.

My aim in writing this thread is to try to develop greater clarity of what the concept of 'God' signifies, as well as the essential aspects of what the idea of God's existence entails. There are various forms of theism, including that of the Judaeo- Christian tradition and one writer, Huston Smith, writing on comparative religion queries the anthromorphism of ideas of God.

I am aware that some people see religious views as systems of belief and atheism as an absence of such beliefs. I wonder about the logic of this. However, logic is important in rational thinking, and possibly in connection with empirical science. Many religious believers speak of faith. I am uncertain of the basis of faith as opposed to rational understanding and its relationship to the everyday existential aspects of faith, and fear, in human life. I am trying to explore what does it mean, philosophically, to argue that God does or not exist?

Jack Cummins

I just wish to add that I am raising the debate over some analysis of the debate between theism and atheism. However, I do see it in the context of the wide range of philosophy perspectives historically and geographically. In this respect, I am raising the area between theism/ atheism, but also other possibilities, including pantheism and the various constructions of reality which may be developed.

ThinkOfOne

↪Jack Cummins

Have you considered the conception that God is truth? Literally? Truth as in that which corresponds to reality? Reality as in based in facts, sound evidence and sound reasoning? Anthropomorphism does not apply. Interestingly this conception of God fits reasonably well with the God of the gospel preached by Jesus as opposed to the God of Christianity which is based on the Pauline "gospel".

introbert

The burden of proof to prove god as a concept is lower than to prove god as a being. There's different ways to establish truth of a concept, but pragmatically, I could show that the concept of god is true because it is good it does good things. Do beliefs in god also do bad things, yes, but perhaps only those particular beliefs are false. Likewise for proving concepts if the concept of god is general enough, such as the underlying cause of all order in the universe then one can freely refer to god when discussing the laws of physics, or why some sentences make sense while others do not, or why numbers reflect material properties. God in this case is used as a concept to explain the unexplainable, and perhaps even once those things become explainable god will still exist beyond the infinite horizon of mystery that new knowledge creates.

180 Proof

I am raising the area between theism/ atheism, but also other possibilities, including pantheism and the various constructions of reality which may be developed — Jack Cummins

Before I reply to the OP directly, I paste the link below to an old post replying to you on a related topic last year, just to add some context to a later post that illustrates those "other possibilities" you suggest.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/599848

Tom Storm

I am trying to explore what does it mean, philosophically, to argue that God does or not exist? — Jack Cummins

It means nothing in itself - just whether you accept a story or not. The problem is not in the belief, but where the belief may take people. Eg, where would Trump or the Taliban be without theism? Or where would Albert Schweitzer be without Christianity?

For me god/s have no explanatory power. To say god made the world is no different to saying the world was made by a fairy. There's no texture or nuance to such a claim and in general the idea seems to be maintained by fallacies like an appeal to ignorance or an argument from incredulity.

180 Proof

For me god/s have no explanatory power. — Tom Storm

:100: :up: "Godidit" is babytalk.

Metaphysician Undercover

For me god/s have no explanatory power. — Tom Storm

If you read the right philosophy you will see that the concept of "God" actually has great explanatory power. Understanding the nature of reality reveals that the Idea, or Form, of a material object necessarily precedes in time, the material existence of the object, as cause of that material object being the unique object which it is . We understand the reality of this process, as to how the Idea precedes the material existence of the object through the understanding of the human will, final causation. And since we understand the earth, and the universe as unique material things, which must have an Idea, or Form, which precedes them in time, as cause of their unique being, the Will of God provides that explanatory power.

180 Proof

↪Metaphysician Undercover

:eyes:
As Pascal points out, (the/an actually worshipped) "God" =/= "the Idea, or Form, which precedes ... in time". Just meta-babytalk, MU. :sweat:

Tom Storm

If you read the right philosophy you will see that the concept of "God" actually has great explanatory power. — Metaphysician Undercover

Start a thread on this if you like. I suspect it will come down to whether one is susceptible to those arguments.

I appreciate there's more premium thought out there that constructs a version of theism with greater nuance and texture. I enjoyed Paul Tillich some decades ago. In clarification - I guess I'm saying that the versions of god in the marketplace have no explanatory power. But to be frank - I am not really in the explanation business. It's religions which seem to want certainty. As an atheist, I am quite happy to say 'I don't know' about any number of subjects.

Mikie

I don't think we should argue about it one way or the other, any more than we should be spending our time arguing about the existence of Zeus and Hormaz.

Jack Cummins

↪ThinkOfOne

I definitely began with the perspective that God is 'truth'. I came from a Catholic background but with an open mindedness to other forms of Christianity initially. However, I began looking at other religions, especially Eastern ones and that was when it all became much more complicated. It was also when I saw some of the negative impacts of religious beliefs, especially guilt, and so many contradictions. Then, I found that I began deconstructing what had formerly appeared to be 'truth'.

Jack Cummins

↪Tom Storm

Religious beliefs can be used in all kinds of ways, especially politically. That realisation was a motivating factor which I found important for questioning theism. However, at the same time it is a little separate from the actual question of whether there is a God or not. I found Gnostic interpretations of Christianity more workable than the literal ones. I have come across Tillich, and Whitehead, as well and that kind of approach seems to make more sense. Generally, I don't consider myself as an actual theist, but I do find my ideas shift, especially in relation to whether there is some purpose behind the scenes. However, I am aware that it may be magical thinking.

I am probably more inclined to wonder about the possibility of God when things are going well for me and others than when everything is going wrong. However, I do still pray at times and have religious friends who often advise me to pray. My own kind of prayer is probably more a kind of silent meditation rather than the more conventional kind, like the ones recited out loud at church.

Metaphysician Undercover

I suspect it will come down to whether one is susceptible to those arguments. — Tom Storm

I would say rather, it comes down to whether or not one understands the principles involved. Denial, and refusal to take the time and effort required to understand, intellectual laziness, renders one not "susceptible to those arguments".

But to be frank - I am not really in the explanation business. It's religions which seem to want certainty. — Tom Storm

You seem to have this backward. Faith is in no way certainty.

It was also when I saw some of the negative impacts of religious beliefs, especially guilt, and so many contradictions. — Jack Cummins

Ridding oneself of guilt is central to Christianity. Love thy neighbour, confessions, forgiveness, are all principles tailored to help free us from the burden of guilt.

Jack Cummins

↪Xtrix

I can remember thinking some time just over a year ago when I was using the forum, why are there so many threads looking at the existence of God. I was reflecting that it was a matter of choice whether people choose to believe that there is some kind of higher force in the cosmos. I was thinking how futile the arguments for and against it. I tried to pay less attention to the threads about God. However, I have to admit that it does still niggle in the back of mind as one of the toughest questions. If anything, I do query why people get fierce arguing for and against God when it is difficult to prove one way or not. But, it is probably because it is an issue which is emotional, because it is central and some see clear reasons to believe in God and others for seeing it as so destructive. I am happy to hear both sides and I am more inclined to have battles in my own mind about the matter rather than with other people.

Jack Cummins

↪Metaphysician Undercover

The issue of guilt is central to Christianity, especially with the idea of original sin. I definitely struggled with guilt at times, but I am not sure that guilt is the main problem in life and wonder if as Schopenhauer and Buddhists argue that the hardest aspect of life is suffering.

Tom Storm

. If anything, I do query why people get fierce arguing for and against God when it is difficult to prove one way or not. — Jack Cummins

Because god'/s are hardly ever the point of these debates - it's value systems supported by belief. As the Trumpists demonstrate.

Metaphysician Undercover

The issue of guilt is central to Christianity, especially with the idea of original sin. I definitely struggled with guilt at times, but I am not sure that guilt is the main problem in life and wonder if as Schopenhauer and Buddhists argue that the hardest aspect of life is suffering. — Jack Cummins

"Suffering" is a very broad term which is used to refer to anything which life's difficulties brings about. So "suffering" is not really the hardest aspect of life, it is just the general term for what all the different hard aspects of life may produce.

180 Proof

↪Jack Cummins

I pray to God to make me free of God. — Meister Eckhart

Once upon a precocious youth I'd been a Catholic teen apostate, an undergraduate negative atheist and then postgraduate positive atheist. Decades on, finally I suspect, I am an antitheist in theory and practice.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/403860

Speculatively, however, pandeism appeals to me.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/718054

Not long ago my devout Catholic mother, who turns an alarmingly youthful 80 this Friday (Sept 2nd), found a letter I'd sent her when I was 25 to reply to her nagging that without "god" or "the church" I must "believe in nothing". I wrote to her ...

I'm a realist – whatever is shown to be real is all that matters to me, so i don't believe in much else. If anything, I believe in evidence and sound arguments. i don't believe in anything that's only subjective or imaginary; therefore, I'm neither religious nor spiritual. "God" just isn't my drug of choice.

More than thirty years later, though my arguments have been significantly refined, my realist position, enriched by life experience and greater understanding, remains substantially the same. Still, when I take her to Mass (most Saturdays), waiting in the car for her and before she goes into church, I remind her to "pray for me" and she nods, and sometimes squeezes my hand, with a quiet "Always". :flower:

Sam26

↪Jack Cummins

To answer this specific question, "What Does it Mean, Philosophically, to Argue that God Does or Does Not Exist?" Very basically, it boils down to, does the concept God have an instance in reality? I use the concept reality in a very broad sense.

Another point about the concept God that seems to get lost in many of the discussions, is that you don't need a precise definition to understand the general idea behind the concept, at least in the western world. In fact, even a vague notion of the concept still has its uses. Many of our concepts are like this, but that doesn't mean there is no use for the concept. For example, the use of the concept game, depending on context, has very different properties from one use to another. This is where Wittgenstein's family resemblance comes into play.

That said, even with my belief in metaphysics, such as they are, I see no argument, deductive or inductive that supports the belief in God. That doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, it just means that as far as I can tell, there is no evidence, or there is weak testimonial evidence to support such a belief.

Mikie

I have to admit that it does still niggle in the back of mind as one of the toughest questions. — Jack Cummins

Do you also consider the existence of Zeus or Hormaz or Shiva as one of the toughest?

I think you see my point. The reason this question is especially relevant to you— understandably — is because you have been raised in the Christian faith and live in a predominantly Christian culture.

Mww

Philosophically, it means that if sound reasoning supports the negation of a proposition under one set of conditions, and an affirmation of the very same proposition under a different set of conditions.....there’s something much more fundamental going on than whatever’s contained in the proposition.

Agent Smith

Jack Cummins reasons thus: I begin in hyperbolic doubt, Descartes style; after all we're not sure at all about all this. I, Jack Cummins, 100%, exist and everything else may not exist (cogito ergo sum). If God exists then the only possibility is that I, Jack Cummins, am He! :snicker:

Athena

Isn't that argument about God basically as argument about what can be known?

Do you also consider the existence of Zeus or Hormaz or Shiva as one of the toughest?

I think you see my point. The reason this question is especially relevant to you— understandably — is because you have been raised in the Christian faith and live in a predominantly Christian culture. — Xtrix

Well yes, that is where I began at about age 8. I have attempted to know all the different understandings of God with the hope of determining what is true. Kind of like the Romans took all the common beliefs and brought them together into one religion with one God.

With what we know today, I do not understand how anyone can read the Bible and believe those stories are better than the stories of Zeus and other gods.

Jack Cummins

↪Xtrix

When you speak of Zeus and Shiva, they are images of what greater reality may exist. From my reading of Jung I came to see the Judaeo- Christian picture developed in the Bible as an image. My mother told me how at times she used to imagine God the father as the old man and Jesus as the young man.

Ultimately, it is about representations. There is the question as to whether God created human beings in his own images or whether humans created God in their own image. In this way, it is like the relationship between the microcosm and the macrocosm. Some people have argued that God is like a person. The OT image of Jahweh was as a person, and wrathful, with Jesus being the figurehead of compassion.In a lot of ways it as of the gods or God is a projection of human understanding and changes. Now, it may be that science has taken over where religion left off. The only thing which has to be remembered is that even science is models, and like the images arising in religious perspectives we are still left with models and representations as approximations.

Jack Cummins

↪180 Proof

Your own development of ideas, including pantheism, is interesting in the sense that it goes beyond the shallow aspects of atheism. Both theism and atheism can be fairly shallow, backed up with very little sound logic. In some ways, some accounts of Buddhist metaphysics make a lot of sense to me as being neither based on ideas of an actual God or scientific materialism. However, I do understand there to be some debate between idealism and materialism.

My own mother died last September and was extremely religious right until the end, although she was so extremely afraid to die. When I told her about a thread on the forum about religion she said that she didn't know that philosophy included thinking about religion at all.

Most of my friends in real life are theists. One gets cross with me for even raising any questions about the existence of God, as if it is as obvious that God exists as the world is round. Some of my friendships go back to when I was a teenager and, at that stage, I was far more of a devout believer than they were. I even have one friend who became a Jehovah's Witnesses and a couple of Muslim friends. I do have one friend who is an atheist and I found talking to him helpful as a balance with having so many friends who are Catholic or Christian.

When I was working in mental health care I was often surrounded by African Christians and they really were inclined to preach. I found it just too much and really don't like it when people begin preaching because it seems so authoritarian. Really, I do find that the discussions on religion on this site useful in general but there are times when there are just too many 'God' threads dancing around on the front page.

Mikie

When you speak of Zeus and Shiva, they are images of what greater reality may exist. — Jack Cummins

That's an interpretation, sure. But then "greater reality" is really what you're discussing, no? Why use "God" or "Shiva" or "Blue Unicorn" and argue about whether "it" exists, knowing the connotations? Just inquire about a greater reality, and we can talk about what that means and whether it exists.

The only thing which has to be remembered is that even science is models, and like the images arising in religious perspectives we are still left with models and representations as approximations. — Jack Cummins

We're left with human beings, with human brains and senses and perspectives, yes. But that doesn't make every perspective equally true or equally valid. It doesn't mean we have to take every claim seriously. I could claim right now that there's a god called Yojimbo, with 5 eyes and 7 arms, who created the world and controls every thought we have. Should we argue about whether or not it exists?

We give extra attention to stories and myths we were raised with. That's understandable, but there's little need to continue with it straight to the grave. There are others ways -- in my view better -- to spend our time. For example, better to inquire about the human being itself, the being interpreting the world in various ways -- the being that says it's created by this or that god, or is infinite, or material, or natural, or whatever.

If that's what we mean when we're arguing about "God," fine. But I'd still say that there's so much baggage associated with the word ("God") it leads to unnecessary confusion.

My own mother died last September and was extremely religious right until the end, although she was so extremely afraid to die. — Jack Cummins

Most of my friends in real life are theists. — Jack Cummins

I was often surrounded by African Christians and they really were inclined to preach. — Jack Cummins

Exactly...so it's no wonder you care so much about the issue. Hard not to when you're surrounded by people who think alike.

hypericin

↪Jack Cummins

I think it boils down to this.

There is a concept of agenthood. Like most concepts it is not binary, it is a continuum. Humans are highly agent, though debates over free will attack this. Rocks are not. Animals are, although their degree varies with the animal and with the person considering them.

Events and objects are similarly the product of agents, by proxy, to various degrees. Paintings are very agent-by-proxy. Cities are as well, though perhaps somewhat less, as there is an element of blind process in their development over time. Thunderstorms are not agent-by-proxy at all.

To be theist is to adopt a radical worldview where, in the deepest sense, agent-by-proxy is applied to everything, to the maximal degree. To be atheist is the opposite, nothing is agent-by-proxy in the deepest sense, everything ultimately results from blind process. There is a whole spectrum of worldviews in between.

180 Proof

180 Proof
Your own development of ideas, including ~~pantheism~~ [pandeism], is interesting in the sense that it goes beyond the shallow aspects of atheism. — Jack Cummins

What are "the shallow aspects of atheism"?

Heracloitus

Godidit" is babytalk. — 180 Proof

Babies are not as stupid as you think

Jack Cummins

↪Xtrix

I am sure that if I had not been surrounded by so many people who come from religious backgrounds I would not have thought about the issue of God like I do. I remember when I went to primary school there were not that many other religious children. Some religious teachings were expressed, in school assemblies mainly, but it was in the background. I remember when they knew that I went to church and catechism classes they often couldn't relate to it. At age 12 I chose to go to a Catholic school and I had been confirmed as a Catholic at age 11, having had my first 'holy communion' at age 7.

So,it is probably not surprising that when I got to doing later studies that I ended up with clashes of ideas. I really did struggle making sense of it all and I had friends who developed religious psychoses. Strangely, with a couple of friends who I am still in touch with, when they are well they do not question religion philosophically. I know one who believes in the literal story in Genesis, including a 7 day creation and an actual person called Adam and Eve. I stopped thinking that while I was still at school.

Even in the hospital where I worked with so many African Christians, there were many patients being admitted with religious psychoses. Somehow, the extent of ideas about God, heaven and hell do have far reaching effects on the development of core beliefs. I do know a couple of people who grew up in schools where philosophy was taught, and not just religious studies and these couple of people are theists. Even though there is a certain move towards secular society there are very strong religious systems of ideas. It is hard to know what direction people will go in the future because religion and the idea of God is so strong in captivating and affecting human understanding.

What Does it Mean, Philosophically, to Argue that God Does or Does Not Exist?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions